Charles Krauthammer in his weekly column for the Washington Post:
"... It’s a howling contradiction to leave up to the states an issue Obama now says is a right. And beyond being intellectually untenable, Obama’s embrace of the more hard-line “rights” argument compels him logically to see believers in traditional marriage as purveyors of bigotry. Not a good place for a president to be in an evenly divided national debate that requires both sides to offer each other a modicum of respect.
No wonder that Obama has been trying to get away from the issue as quickly as possible. It’s not just the New York Timespoll showing his new position to be a net loser. It’s that he is too intelligent not to realize he’s embraced a logical contradiction.
... Notwithstanding a comically fawning press, Obama knows he has boxed himself in. His “rights” argument compels him toward nationalize same-sex marriage and sharpen hostility toward proponents of traditional marriage — a place he is loath to go.
8 Comments
Charles Krauthhammer. Brilliant, articulate and soft spoken.
Love this guy.
The rhetoric and the argumentation of the SSM campaign is a mess. SSMers take themselves down a path to quicksand and invite the rest of society to join them there.
The SSM hardliners are the racist analogues in the public square, unfortunately.
Obama has counted himself among the enemies of freedom.
Clearly, intelligence and wisdom are not the same things.
What is Obama to do? Is ssm a right that must be forced on the entire country? Or is it just something he thinks is a good idea, but will leave the states to pursue? It can’t be both. And if he settles on the second position, everyone will take it with a grain of salt. His credibility is in serious doubt.
Obama said it himself. If i can't fix the economy, i won't have a Second Term. So, he vows to the same-sex marriage cover up, publicly. Not realizing he still doesn't have his arguments consistent. But Obama wins votes from those who don't think as deeply as Krauthammer. Presented with a loose analogy, those people vote any way Obama says. It is important to reach them with good reason. We must not just sit talking with those who agree with us. That's what Obama wants us to do. We must reach out to those who do NOT agree with us (as long as they are sane). Don't waste your time with those who cannot reason. Don't throw the pearls to the hogs.
Krauthammer makes a great distinction between the "Empathy" and "Rights" arguments; a distinction I have not heard before, and one on which Obama contradicts himself.
The Empathy argument is probably more popular with the casual Genderless Marriage supporter. While less confrontational, it is more insidious and difficult to defeat. Krauthammer himself subscribes to this view. He is no social conservative.
The "Rights" argument is easy to smoke out - just ask "What is Marriage?" and there is no principled definition that can exclude Polygamy and Relatives.
Ask that question to an Empathetic Genderless ally, and they'll respond - Who cares - marriage is whatever we say it is - and feeling trump all. It is difficult to argue with that level of Post Modern irrationality.
I echo what Zack says and find Charles K. brillant as he articulates arguments that noone ever thought of.